List projects

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no result ordering, no note about how many projects come back or whether archived projects are included.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Its terseness is appropriate for a four-word tool, though it borders on under-specified rather than merely concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description has to carry the burden of telling the agent what comes back — and it doesn't. It says nothing about return shape, pagination, ordering, or whether the list is scoped to the authenticated user; for an agent deciding whether this is the right call, that is a real gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain and the baseline applies. The absence of parameters is consistent with a simple list operation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb and resource ('List' + 'projects'), so the basic action is unambiguous. But it does nothing to distinguish it from sibling list tools (list_assets, list_brand_kits, list_caption_templates) or from get_project, leaving scope boundaries implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_project (single item) or the other list_* siblings. Usage is only inferable from the name itself, which is the minimum guidance possible.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.